John Carmack no longer sees PC as important as consoles!

[Joelcool7]

averyblund said:

Gosh from here on I need to edit these images better, so I don't sidetrack you guys on unrelated topics. Half the stuff on there does seem silly - agreed. I didn't reference any of ther other shit for that very reason.

So to not counting non "mainstream games" since when are mainstream games the only games? I think I made it pretty clear that I was including social and casual games cuz they are in fact games- like it or not. 

As for when the comments were made- if I erred there my fault. I used the date of the article and assumed it was recent. Perhaps you can tell me the timeline and correct my misperception?

Sorry again for the unrelated crap. Your pretty much right about a lot of it, but I really was only making 2 points and nothing else on that image is at all relevant to the conversation. The StarCraft II comparison is laughable and biased.

 

I was referring to the topic John Carmack's opinion and what he said and not suggesting PC gaming is dead or that non-maintream games aren't games. Fact is a free to play title or a social network game or a 99cent game being massively successful doesn't mean shit to John Carmack as he develops mainstream games.

Arguing John Carmack or almost any other console game developer should support PC because some social games and such are making millions is illogical. Its like going to the most successful restaurant in New York and saying "Hey McDonalds serves more customers you should switch to fast food".

Yes social network games are games but they are not the games John or most of the other console/pc mainstream developers make. EA and UbiSoft and such have taken notice to the emergence of these successful PC games and have created new studios and departments within existing ones to make products for that market.

But suggesting id goes from making Rage to 99cent games, free to play, subscription based online games or social network titles is nuts. For the average company supporting both PC and console, consoles are the best option for the kind of content they are releasing. PC is least important to big budget game designers or developers who actually try and create high quality software.

As for John Carmack's comments, his old comments are included in many articles talking about his most recent comments because they contradict each other and are directly related. His comments about PC support for Rage being inferior and how if PC had been the primary platform it could have looked far better and utilized ten times the power, these comments were made in June around E3. While his latest comments which this thread is based on were made only days ago and talk about how a superior PC version would lead to poorer quality console versions much higher development costs and a shift of effort towards technical prowess over quality of the experience.